"[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country"

No. The people responsible for spying on American citizens are the ones who have betrayed their country and the public interest. They're the ones who should be caught, tried, and imprisoned. Government officials who violate the US constitution are traitors. People like Snowden are heroes.

o. The people responsible for spying on American citizens are the ones who have betrayed their country and the public interest.

I doubt they see it that way. And in any case, it's easy to blame somebody else... or a group of people... but let me ask: Did you vote in the last election? Did you write to your congress critters at any point during the long procession of decisions that has led us to this point? Held up a sign on a street corner? Had a meaningful discussion with a stranger about this? Met with anyone to discuss the problem? Democracy doesn't run very well on apathy... it's rather like pouring diesel into a gas tank... the results aren't pretty and the engine usually dies as a result.

They're the ones who should be caught, tried, and imprisoned.

Might I suggest that since we already have the highest incarceration rate of any country on the planet we start looking to solutions to social problems that don't involve sending people to our criminal education centers? Because that's pretty much what prison is: It's a place you go to meet like-minded people and learn all kinds of shit you wouldn't otherwise learn... and are then normalized to the idea that what you did was okay. And then you're released back into society where you're promptly told you have few housing or employment options, no friends, and very often just the clothes on your back. Oh... and a fresh new education.

. Government officials who violate the US constitution are traitors.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom â" go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -- Samuel Adams

If you aren't participating, you're part of the problem. As part of the problem, you must be a traitor. As a traitor, you should be executed. (grabs a big rock) So, how do you want to die, sinner?!... In other news, extreme statements like calling people "traitors" can result in extreme reactions, like stoning to death. Of course, a more civilized discourse would avoid using words like "traitor" to describe government officials carrying out their official duties, and perhaps might focus instead on the actual constitutional definition of what a traitor is... since you did invoke the Constitution afterall. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with the relevant passage...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Democracy doesn't run very well on apathy... it's rather like pouring diesel into a gas tank... the results aren't pretty and the engine usually dies as a result.

Democracy doesn't run very well on apathy, but apathy is itself the product of a failed democracy. You're deluding yourself if you think apathy suffices to explain the sorry state in which we find ourselves. Perhaps some reading [google.com] is in order?

When it comes to heroes, it's time for a reality check. A huge number of people who the public would call heroes - whether it's the citizens who ran towards the building that collapsed recently in Philadelphia, or the first responders to 9/11, or Sully, the pilot who landed a plane on the Hudson safely - don't consider themselves heroes. There's already a few disparate terms that describe it in media, from hero self-deprecation to the "humble hero". I can't find one that describes this phenomenon in real li

Charles Barkley doesn't think he's a role model either, but guess what... he is. When people do extraordinary things, there is a significant chance that millions of people will hold such actions in high regard and elevate said person to 'role model' or 'hero' status. Snowden is a hero for the simple fact that he ousted illegal activity by a government organization. If the actions weren't illegal, but were just 'super secret', Snowden would be a traitor and should hang. But no, all he did was risk his own life to expose quite possibly the worst betrayal of trust the U.S. government has ever bestowed upon its citizens.

Did you vote in the last election? If you voted, then you are partly to blame for the problems in your society. By refusing to vote for evil, you are not supporting evil. And politicians are nothing if not evil.

Oh, but third party you might cry. First: Waste of time. Second: Evil anyway. Third: Will be cooperated by the system and become evil even if you don't think that they are now.

In conclusion, if you vote Democrat or Republican in the USA you are part of the problem. If you vote third party, you are wa

Have to agree. Obama is actually complicit with all this so should be brought up on charges. In fact Obama more than others since he explicitly states he will uphold the U.S. Constitution when he takes the job.

And given the almost religious "patriotic" response after 9/11 within the US I would say, 2,000 more "patriots" would gladly give their lives in order for the government not to be oppressing the rest of the world like this. Right?

We had ample warning prior to 9-11. The FBI was even keeping track of Mohammad Atah while he was taking flying lessons in Florida. It was the higher-ups in D.C. who didn't take the threat seriously and refused to act on this information.

Another example, the shoe bomber, who was thwarted at the last minute by passengers. His father had grown suspicious about his son, and warned the U.S. embassy in his country. Another real lead that was not followed up on.

After every successful terrorist attack, there is always some soul searching about how this attack could have been prevented. I don't see how spying on Americans by default would have changed things on 9-11. In the end, people have to make decisions based on the incomplete information that is available and chose which leads could be true threats and which ones are probably not. That's where the break down in U.S. security is; effectively interpreting the information available. Not that there is not enough information in the first place.

If the U.S. really wants to be safe from Muslim extremists, the U.S. should focus on building better relations with the Muslim community. The first step would be to stop betraying those values we preach to others. The second step would be to improve access for young people int he middle east to educational opportunities in the U.S. through an expanded visa and scholarship program. The third step would be to improve primary and secondary education in the middle east. I know schools aren't as sexy as an armed Global Hawk drone. But the best information comes from people on the ground who are in contact with potential terrorists. If the U.S. were seen in a more positive light, we would get better information as a result. Lastly, intervening in Syria and taking sides in yet another middle-eastern civil war, is just plain stupid.

I think you can find a compromise where the government doesn't need to monitor everything we do. Take the Boston bombers. Russia warned us and yet we still didn't target any of the communications they made that the investigators later found on their phones and computers. What a fantastic system, eh? Don't let the government fool you into giving up your privacy. Remember a few months ago when they wanted you to give up your guns? What's next...

Russian warnings can't all be followed up on. They probably gave a warning on every single Chechnyan. When you're inundated with data you will miss the important data, but will be accused of being incompetent after the fact.

And don't forget, the info Google and Facebook has posted about the number of requests and how many users info they divulged doesn't include info from FISA warrants, because...they are secret. The recipient is ordered to turn over the info and to not tell anyone that they even received a FISA warrant.

I'll get hate for pointing this out but then again common sense seems to be poison to the politically correct, but if most of your troubles are coming from one group, how about keeping more of the group from coming over and keeping a closer eye on the ones you got, how about that?

I'm sure the PC crowd will scream racial profiling and wet their panties but if most of your trouble is coming from the a certain demographic then why in the fuck should we waste 4 times the effort just to make sure the groups whic

I'll get hate for pointing this out but then again common sense seems to be poison to the politically correct, but if most of your troubles are coming from one group, how about keeping more of the group from coming over and keeping a closer eye on the ones you got, how about that?

You do realize that the majority of mass killings and other terrorist incidents in the U.S. have been the result of the actions of right-wing white male Christians, right?

You do realize that left-wing fascist is an oxymoron. Fascism is a feature of the political right. Nationalism, strong militarized government, and inequality are all right-wing ideas, and all essential to fascism.

That fascism is related in some ways to other forms of authoritarian and totalitarian is irrelevant to the fact that fascism is in no way left-wing.I never claimed that there were any fascist governments in power today. In fact, whether or not there are or there aren't, it is irrelevant to my argument that fascism is not at all left-wing.

And if the GGP was referring to the authoritarian aspects of fascism and then saying that Washington is left-wing, then they are deluded, as well as miss using the language

Sorry but the other guy is right, fascism is by its very design a right wing concept, it is the government and corporations working as one, this is completely 180 degrees away from the left which puts the government in control of everything and corporations are powerless.

To make it easy to picture Stalin was 100% left, Hitler was 100% right, sure to the outside they both look similar but how their countries ran was VERY different. The reason you may be having trouble is we have one party in this country l

Oh and just FYI while those Christian nutballs have to go to a few groups that are rightly monitored like the Aryan Nation because the mainstream churches don't want to have a fucking thing to do with dangerous nutballs the last checkup the FBI did on mosques in the USA find more than 40% of them preaching the whole "death to the great satan" bullshit, I'd post a link but after the PC police threw

Pragmatic response would be, the best information about threats would come from people in "that group." If you want access to useful information on which to build good intelligence, you would need to have good relationships with "that group." Or you could be like Israel, and put "them" behind a fence, and watch your reliable information sources dry up and your cost of collecting information rise exponentially. The Maginot Line defense seldom works in the real world.

I can tell why political correctness is the best choice even for the purely pragmatic: if you persecute or ostracize a particular group of people, you will be creating rancor. While profiling makes sense when you think about immediate prevention of hate crimes, on the long run it's self-defeating. Why do you think religion in the middle east hasn't "grown the fuck up" like a few others, given they were all equally violent a couple of centuries ago? Because it still fits their mindset, because they live stil

His point was that only loons take those parts seriously among any but the Moslem religions, and that the Moslems DO that those parts (or their equivalents) seriously.

I'm not totally sure that I agree with him, but his point does have some measure of validity. OTOH, tolerance levels can change quickly, and parts that are ignored by one generation can be revived by a following generation. It's happened before. (His argument about religions "growing up" fails on that basis. A temporary level of tolerance

I once had a VERY wise old Baptist preacher explain it to me, he said "The western religions are a salad bar. We have seen the horrors that come from strict adherence to dogma, such as the dark ages, and we learned to take away the best parts and leave the worst parts. For example see how many churches in the 40s and 50s tried to use the "Curse Of Ham" to justify Jim Crow, any church that even attempted that today would be quickly shunned."

Dumb thing is - people forget that there were plenty of clues noticed before 9/11 with which, if it weren't for bureaucracy, the plot might very well have been prevented. That's with the laws that were already in place at the time.

And the 25,000 brave drivers who died on the road, who can forget them. That's 2000 a month. We should outlaw automobiles.

Terrorism doesn't even make the top ten causes of death in the USA. I say we think about spying on and data mining every single American when it does make the top ten or even the top one hundred and in the meantime we get to work on fixing the things we SHOULD be scared of (see below). The reason given for intercepting and recording all of our communications is obviously a con and yet so many are going for it so easily. I guess the fact that our government is spying on us exactly as a totalitarian govt. wou

Red herring and frankly a lame excuse, we lose more people to car wrecks in your average year and if they really gave a rat's ass about that we wouldn't have a border so pointless you could drive a nuke through the thing and which is largely controlled by drug cartels.

Nope if 9/11 wouldn't have happened it would have been something else, from COINTELPRO to Iran Contra the government has been getting nastier by the year, 9/11 simply gave them a way to slam on the accelerator and get away with doing it all at

Ironically that is EXACTLY what I think is gonna happen. There is a reason why NO empire, no matter how powerful, last more than a few centuries and that is because it ALWAYS becomes so corrupted the people lose faith and tear it down.

Once upon a time the Roman Empire controlled the known world, and nothing could touch Roman tech. Once upon a time the sun never set on the British empire...where are they? Gone now, the greed and corruption made them dysfunctional and they fell apart. It would be the height

if those 2,000 brave fools hadn't signed up in the first place they wouldn't have died

and for anyone who thinks that without the brave fools terrorists would take over the world... wake the fuck up and get a clue dipshits... when you invade and blow up other countries, you piss people off and they fly planes into your buildings... so... stop blowing people up and you won't need to worry... it's not rocket science for fuck's sake

"[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country"

No. It's the people responsible for spying on American citizens who have betrayed their country and the public interest. They are the ones who should be tried and punished for treason. People like Snowden are heroes. It's those who violate the US Constitution who are traitors.

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

It gets better. Mr. Clapper said, under oath and before Congress, that Snowden "didn't have the access" necessary to make his claims. He then goes on to state that he's a traitor. Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

I suspect this is the NSA version of "We don't have a problem and we're working to fix it as quickly as possible," and by fixing, of course we mean throwing someone under the bus. Since Snowden is at the bottom of the food chain, we'll start there, and continue feeding people to the lions at progressively higher levels of the bureauacracy until the "problem" goes away. And the problem of course isn't that the NSA is doing this, but that they got pants'd by some kid. Remember, it's not wrong if it's legal! -_-

It's the NSA version of saying what is necessary to appease the congress. Normally they only have to deal with a very tiny committee of inner circle friends, like Feinstein. But every so often some of the sheep in congress wake up and start asking questions, and it makes the security people nervous.

Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.

Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.

The really obvious flaw in your logic is that it requires more than the claim to be true. If I claim the US is secretly recording the content of conversations between Americans (based on my personal speculation), that doesn't make me a traitor, even if it's true. On the other hand, I'm arguably a traitor if the government gives me access to that information and I then betray my NDA/oath/security clearance and reveal it. He really did need to have the access he claims, or it's not really treason, because

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

That is what happens when the people in power become convinced of their own righteousness. It is not an evil plot, it is simply the natural result of fact that basically no one ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So if they are the good guys, then whatever they do must also be good. They convince themselves that any harmful side-effects truly are minimal (easy to do when the side-effects don't impact them directly) and are a necessary cost for the greater good.

did the right thing. The truth is, I believe that MANY more Americans would be in favor of the government sifting through the information IF they were informed of such processes. The problem is transparency, or the lack of it actually. Covertly operating as they are doing, to me, is the real issue. That being said, I personally think that regardless of transparency, I've always assumed Big Brother was watching more than it should, but I've never let it bothered me because it would be just much ado about nothing.

A head in the sand argument to this spying doesn't hold water, the "I don't do anything wrong, so no problem" argument. It is a problem for everyone simply because people you support can be spyed on, and the information can then be used against them. If a republican government is in power, they can spy on the democrats for example. Objectors to any government policy can be spyed on and their cause undermined. This is a massive problem for America. Sitting here in Australia the media is reporting this quite

If you read carefully, saying that specific requests have come in for 20000 users doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet. Past reports and disclosures on NSA activities (as well as the activities of other spy agencies) suggest that this is likely routine practice. Facebook doesn't even deny this, and of course even if they did, it's questionable whether such a denial was meaningful. In addition, it's clear that the NSA and other agencies actively collect data from all open sources that they can. And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

So I don't know what these disclosures are supposed to accomplish. They really don't change anything. At the root of the problem is really that there isn't enough transparency and that people have lost trust. What we need and should demand is complete legal, fiscal, and legislative transparency on our spy organizations, what they are legally allowed to do, who sets limits on them, and how much we're spending on it. I don't see why understanding in such general terms what these organizations do should hinder their ability to catch terrorists. And if such disclosures really interfere with their capabilities, that suggests by itself that they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

the requests for crimes to be decided later as such, and taps for them, are secret and it's a treason to tell how they are performed since it's a "critical tool".

naturally that kind of thing existing can only be a pr disaster sooner or later. since people can't believe what the companies are saying since the company personnel would be performing a crime if they admitted to it. however as another catch they're as public companies required to in

doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet.

Apparently SSL encryption at all of the large internet corps is handled by dedicated front-ends - and the network between the SSL front-ends and the real guts of entities like facebook, google, etc are all in the clear. That makes for a perfect location for the NSA to drop their sniffers in, no need to compromise any SSL certs at all, no forward secrecy, etc, just wide open traffic perfect for raw harvesting.

And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

I think that bears repeating - the NSA ain't building data silos (there are others, like one in san antonio, texas [nsa.gov]) that consume as much electricity as a small city for nothing. They are collecting literally tons of data on us, its gotta be coming from somewhere.

Apparently SSL encryption at all of the large internet corps is handled by dedicated front-ends - and the network between the SSL front-ends and the real guts of entities like facebook, google, etc are all in the clear. That makes for a perfect location for the NSA to drop their sniffers in, no need to compromise any SSL certs at all, no forward secrecy, etc, just wide open traffic perfect for raw harvesting.

Even if they are using SSL between the front end and the middle tier, self signed certs are probably used between those layers and its "game over" anyway in that case.

Google uses ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key exchange [blogspot.com] for its SSL implementation, as long as the client is modern enough (i.e. everything except IE on Windows XP). That provides forward secrecy. Even if the NSA had the private keys, they wouldn't be able to snoop on anyone's traffic by passively sniffing - they'd have to mount an active MITM attack, and that is much harder to do, and even harder to do undetectably.

And if such disclosures really interfere with their capabilities, that suggests by itself that they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Not necessarily. There's good reason to capture all kinds of metadata ahead of time, and store it for a period of time; The most practical argument is that it reduces the cost of executing search warrants. Anyone who's worked in IT knows that the moment you have a database, people are going to want access, and eventually, mirrors of at least some of that data is going to start cropping up elsewhere on the network. It'll be exported to spreadsheets, it'll be handed to the building maintenance people, it'll b

A lot of this "big scary NSA" non-sense is based on a misconception that just because the NSA is capturing this information means they're using it, or even looking at it.

The fact that this information is easily available at all, and potentially without a court order, is a threat to our political system. You can be sure that the president gets national security reports on all major political figures, both allies and foes alike. Tax evasion, extramarital affairs, homosexuality, illegitimate children, drug habits, whatever are all considered security relevant and would of course be reported. And all of those also happen to be wonderful means for exerting pressure on people to vote his way or drop out of political races. This is too powerful a political weapon to give to the executive branch.

The fact that this information is easily available at all, and potentially without a court order, is a threat to our political system.

Dude, a lack of citizen participation is a threat to our political system, but I'm sure you're leaping from the couch right now, rushing out the door without even grabbing your coat, and driving like a crazy man down to your local congress critter's office and telling them what a threat it is. Or, more likely, you're doing what every other American does when faced with a political crisis: Turn on the TV and pat yourself on the back about how you agree with the talking heads of your choice, and then go to be

Not necessarily. There's good reason to capture all kinds of metadata ahead of time, and store it for a period of time; The most practical argument is that it reduces the cost of executing search warrants.

The NSA also would not want anybody else to know what their search criteria is. They are at least as vulnerable to traffic analysis as anybody else. If they seize the data, err, I mean acquire and archive the data, then their searches are all local and away from prying eyes.

If you read carefully, saying that specific requests have come in for 20000 users doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet. Past reports and disclosures on NSA activities (as well as the activities of other spy agencies) suggest that this is likely routine practice. Facebook doesn't even deny this, and of course even if they did, it's questionable whether such a denial was meaningful. In addition, it's clear that the NSA and other agencies actively collect data from all open sources that they can. And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

So I don't know what these disclosures are supposed to accomplish. They really don't change anything. At the root of the problem is really that there isn't enough transparency and that people have lost trust. What we need and should demand is complete legal, fiscal, and legislative transparency on our spy organizations, what they are legally allowed to do, who sets limits on them, and how much we're spending on it. I don't see why understanding in such general terms what these organizations do should hinder their ability to catch terrorists. And if such disclosures really interfere with their capabilities, that suggests by itself that they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

They are throwing numbers out there to try to put the genie back in the bottle but Americans already know.

I think a lot of people have given up on the White House petitions site, the responses thus far on positions the administration does not approve of have been less than stellar. They are often a boilerplate response roughly approximating "we understand your concerns and will take them under advisement" which is bureaucrat for "get lost".

Or people don't want to get put on an enemies list so that they can be harassed by the various agencies of the government... welcome to the chilling effects of the police state.

Of course, it's all fun and games when it's "those people" we disagree with that get harassed and silenced by our increasingly authoritarian government. Those people bring it on themselves, it's not the fault of the establishment we intentionally built. Oh and "those people" don't have to be the tea party if that's what you were t

What are all of the three letter agencies so afraid of? I mean, If they aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't be concerned with some reasonable transparency. As long as they don't have anything to hide, right?

Its always amazing how some federal agencies seem to think it is so important to have unfettered access to others information so they can "keep a vigilant eye out" yet they so detest anyone making sure that their own activities remain above board. Especially in light of the obvious revolving door between the private sector companies which stand to make billions, and the three letter agencies dolling out those fees. As noted in the Guardian article James Clapper the current director of National Intelligence, one of the loudest voices of "disapproval" against Snowden's actions, was Vice-President of Booz Allen Hamilton not too long ago. That coupled with his lies to congress in regards to these programs............ If we're looking for traitors I'm far more concerned with the ones who are fleecing the American taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars and lying to government inquests than one individual who released classified documents in an attempt to inform the public about possibly illegal acts.

What are all of the three letter agencies so afraid of? I mean, If they aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't be concerned with some reasonable transparency. As long as they don't have anything to hide, right?

Privacy advocates always say "if you have nothing to hide, hide everything". And that is exactly what these organisations obviously try to do: hide everything.

Now the difference of course is that you and I are individuals, and the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. are US-government subsidised organisations. It would make sense if the people that pay for them (the general population) would be kept in the know of what they're up to, and how well they perform. Yet they simply try to "hide everything".

Facebook said Friday it had received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data... during the second half of last year

Though not unheard of, six months is an uncommon period to report; isn't the general expectation that they would report a full year's worth? Of course that would result in the requests being approximately doubled. My concern would be people will remember the amount as "9,000 and 10,000 requests per year".

This reminds me of politicians who also skew the time period to make dollar amounts appear larger or smaller.To make dollar amounts appear larger, they increase the time period ("we're investing $4 billion over ten years").An innovative approach recently used by Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to convince Australians that politicians were only awarding themselves a tiny increase in public money was to use the following: the increase is only a dollar per vote per year.

I suspect the choice of "six months" was a deliberate attempt to skew the perception of the requests.

That seems a bit of a stretch. The more straightforward insidious reason to report the second half of last year's data is because it looks a lot better than the first half of the year's data. People will see 9-10 thousand in half a year and assume, okay, that means about 18-20 thousand in a year, when in fact the whole year's stats were much worse...

This sort of surveillance ("We need to look at these specific accounts") doesn't bother me: that's how search warrants are supposed to work. (Well, assuming they are looking for terrorists and not just harassing Tea Party people.) This seems quite different from some other recent disclosures, like the Verizon warrants: "Give us records of all calls made." Search warrants, to be constitutional, have to be specific. General warrants [thefreedictionary.com] were abused by the British and are a specific reason the Fourth Amendment was

I suspect the warrants were for specific content that would fall under even their tortured interpretation of the 4th amendment and one of them every 3 months or more often was for *all* of their metadata just like Verizon and other provided. They had a bigger stick to use on the telecommunication companies as Quest found out so dealing with them is easier.

In a HS commentary to that story they ask if cyber weapons trade should be regulated as well as IRL weapons. That would be something from redundant to hilarious, considering things like (a) strong crypto is already regulated like weapons when exported from the US, (b) the root of the problem is consumer software like Windows, so perhaps it should be classified likewise, and (c) how do you regulate people exchanging data, on the Internet or otherwise.

... its a feedback loop for manipulation of the public via controlled media (Main Stream Media).Silicon valley should know this and Hollywood certainly does about how feedback loops are used to promote one thing or another.

There is no way such a large amount of spying can be filtered as abstract language is only as useful as the definitions applied by those using it. In other words, a terrorist plot could be communicated in a manner of common conversation that is undetectable. But certainly spying on such a

For years, the Carlyle Group [nytimes.com] has tried to shed its former reputation as a second home for government officials and a specialist in buying defense companies. But the recent fracas over the National Security Agencyâs [nytimes.com] surveillance programs highlights the private equity giant's remaining ties to government work: its majority stake in Booz Allen Hamilton, the employer of the whistle-blower, Edward J. Snowden [nytimes.com].

So, I'm clicking links and trying to RTFA with some dry, carefully constructed analysis of alleged data, but no actual fucking data? What kinds of people were spied upon? Has anyone got a copy of the list of which accounts? Are any of us on it? Do we know how much the gubberment knows?

Then Booz Allen was involved in scattered other irregularities and questionable dealings which are unfortunately typical for companies of that size, that have major dealings with the Pentagon and other agencies of the Federal government.

Like a lot of folks on Wall Street, the Guardian sees two points and draws a trend line. Only it's more like one point so far. The US Government intentionally, across multiple departments & agencies, with malice aforethought, massively violating the US Constitution and the Rights of it's citizens in nearly every way possible. Well, except house troops in our homes. We can give them that. For now..

well.. if nothing else it's highly relevant that the programs work pretty much as a funds siphoning device(in addition to being secret, useless and rights infringing).

you would think that if they had any brains they would legislate such programs to be done with governmental employees only, no? wouldn't it make sense that only military/police/nsa personnel would be allowed to work on the project? 200k/year for technicians! imagine how much the company was billing the government for that 200k - put it at mildly at 400k. for a technician in a role they shouldn't be buying from a private contractor in the first place in a project that should not be touched by private contractor hands in the first place.. now it runs on basis of "hey here's xxx million - do what you please with it! hire friends! give stupid support contracts!".

you know what's worse than a spy program? a spy program ran by dicks for money. it's as stupid as hiring your own veterans as private contractors for military operations.

So, the government is wholesale Hoovering the electronic communications of the populace, and by you it's only mildly odiferous. One has to wonder, what would it take for you to sense a stink? As it stands, I can't help but consider you'd fit right in with the "Arbeit macht frei" people.